Discuss why the law uses a "reasonable" person standard: an objective standard. What is "reasonable"? Not quirky? Not a smart aleck? Not a smooth talker? Not a shy person? And why use "reasonable"? Why look at it objectively? What if I'm thinking, "Yes. If I can get the helmet and jacket with the bike, I'm going to buy it." I go talk to the guy, make that deal. And he doesn't deliver the helmet or the jacket. We go to court and the judge says to the jury, "It doesn't matter what Dr. Walling was thinking the entire day before, all of the night before, when he woke up in the morning, the entire morning of, when he got in his car, when he got out of his car to go into the bike shop, when he talked to the guy, and when he made the deal. You must only look at it from the perspective of a reasonable person: Based on what happened, would a reasonable person conclude that the helmet and jacket were part of the deal?" Does that make sense? Why?